A Route to Well-Being: Intelligence Versus Wise Reasoning

Abstract

Laypeople and many social scientists assume that superior reasoning abilities lead to greater well-being. However, previous research has been inconclusive. This may be because prior investigators used operationalizations of reasoning that favored analytic as opposed to wise thinking. We assessed wisdom in terms of the degree to which people use various pragmatic schemas to deal with social conflicts. With a random sample of Americans, we found that wise reasoning is associated with greater life satisfaction, less negative affect, better social relationships, less depressive rumination, more positive versus negative words used in speech, and greater longevity. The relationship between wise reasoning and well-being held even when controlling for socioeconomic factors, verbal abilities, and several personality traits. As in prior work, there was no association between intelligence and well-being. Further, wise reasoning mediated age-related differences in well-being, particularly among middle-aged and older adults. Implications for research on reasoning, well-being, and aging are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

Full text

A Route to Well-Being: Intelligence Versus Wise Reasoning
Igor Grossmann
University of Waterloo
Jinkyung Na
University of Texas at Dallas
Michael E. W. Varnum
Peking University
Shinobu Kitayama and Richard E. Nisbett
University of Michigan
Laypeople and many social scientists assume that superior reasoning abilities lead to greater well-being.
However, previous research has been inconclusive. This may be because prior investigators used
operationalizations of reasoning that favored analytic as opposed to wise thinking. We assessed wisdom
in terms of the degree to which people use various pragmatic schemas to deal with social conflicts. With
a random sample of Americans, we found that wise reasoning is associated with greater life satisfaction,
less negative affect, better social relationships, less depressive rumination, more positive versus negative
words used in speech, and greater longevity. The relationship between wise reasoning and well-being
held even when controlling for socioeconomic factors, verbal abilities, and several personality traits. As
in prior work, there was no association between intelligence and well-being. Further, wise reasoning
mediated age-related differences in well-being, particularly among middle-aged and older adults. Impli-
cations for research on reasoning, well-being, and aging are discussed.
Keywords: affect, aging, intelligence, reasoning, well-being, wisdom
The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts.
—Marcus Antonius
Scholars since at least the time of Aristotle have speculated that
superior reasoning leads to greater well-being. This is consistent
with laypeople’s intuitions and beliefs about themselves—those
people who report greater well-being believe that they have supe-
rior reasoning abilities (Campbell, Converse, & Rogers, 1976,
Study 3; Diener & Fujita, 1995). However, various large-scale
studies have shown no relationship between standard measures of
intelligence and well-being (e.g., Sigelman, 1981;Watten, Sy-
versen, & Myhrer, 1995;Wirthwein & Rost, 2011). Furthermore,
abstract reasoning abilities and other types of fluid intelligence
decline over adulthood (Salthouse, 2004), yet older adults report
greater well-being than their younger counterparts (e.g.,
Carstensen, Pasupathi, Mayr, & Nesselroade, 2000;Mroczek &
Kolarz, 1998). Moreover, standard intelligence tests do not do a
good job of capturing people’s ability to think about social rela-
tions (e.g., Sternberg, 1999) or real-world decision making (e.g.,
Stanovich, 2009).
We propose that superior reasoning may, in fact, be related to
well-being but that this is true for pragmatic (as opposed to
abstract) reasoning. By pragmatic reasoning, we mean reasoning
that is influenced by life experiences and situated in a social
context. Such reasoning strategies have been described as wise by
both philosophers and psychologists. Although wisdom has been
defined in many ways (Sternberg & Jordan, 2005), there is some
consensus that wisdom involves the use of certain types of prag-
matic reasoning that are prosocial and that help to navigate im-
portant challenges in social life. For instance, Baltes and col-
leagues (Baltes & Smith, 2008)—who developed the Berlin
wisdom paradigm— have defined wisdom as knowledge useful for
dealing with life problems, including an awareness of the varied
contexts of life and how they change over time, recognition that
values and goals differ among people, and acknowledgment of the
uncertainties of life (together with ways to manage these uncer-
tainties). Similarly, Basseches (1980) and Kramer (1983)—repre-
senting the neo-Piagetian view of reasoning—formulated a set of
cognitive schemas they believed to be involved in wise thinking,
including acknowledgment of others’ points of view, appreciation
of contexts broader than the issue at hand, sensitivity to the
possibility of change in social relations, acknowledgment of the
likelihood of multiple outcomes of a conflict, concern with conflict
resolution, and preference for compromise in resolving opposing
viewpoints.
This article was published Online First August 6, 2012.
Igor Grossmann, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; Jinkyung Na, Center for Vital Longevity,
University of Texas at Dallas; Michael E. W. Varnum, Department of
Psychology, Peking University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; Shi-
nobu Kitayama and Richard E. Nisbett, Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of Michigan.
The work presented in this article was completed as part of Igor Gross-
mann’s dissertation research. It supported by the International Max Plank
Research LIFE Fellowship and the Rackham Predoctoral Dissertation
Fellowship awarded to Igor Grossmann and National Institute on Aging
Grant 5RO129509-02 awarded to Richard E. Nisbett and Shinobu Ki-
tayama. We thank Robert J. Sternberg and Jacqui Smith for thoughtful
comments on a previous version of the article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Igor
Grossmann, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada. E-mail: igrossma@uwaterloo.ca
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General © 2012 American Psychological Association
2013, Vol. 142, No. 3, 944–953 0096-3445/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0029560
944

Little work has directly tested the relationship between wise
reasoning and well-being. The only two studies we are aware of
that have examined this question used the Berlin wisdom para-
digm. These studies found inconclusive results. In one study, wise
reasoning was unrelated to negative affect,
1
but it was weakly
positively related to some aspects of positive affect (e.g., feeling
interested or inspired; Kunzmann & Baltes, 2003). In another
study, wise reasoning was unrelated to people’s positive or nega-
tive emotional responses but negatively related to global judgment
of life satisfaction (particularly among the top 15% on wise rea-
soning; Mickler & Staudinger, 2008). It is important to consider
that the materials in these studies included rather abstract de-
scriptions of personal problems. For instance, participants were
asked to read and respond to such scenarios as “A 14-year-old girl
wants to move away from home right away” or “Somebody gets a
phone call from a good friend. The friend says that she or he
cannot go on anymore and that she or he has decided to commit
suicide” (Baltes & Staudinger, 2000). Such briefly described sce-
narios provided little information about social context, which may
be a critical factor in the assessment of wise reasoning (Sternberg,
2004). Thus, it remained unclear if wisdom-related forms of rea-
soning are linked with well-being. With the present work, we
aimed to fill this gap in the literature by using a novel measure of
wise reasoning to systematically investigate its relationship to a
large number of well-being indicators.
We built on the idea that people acquire wisdom through expe-
rience and through successful mastery of various challenging life
experiences (Pascual-Leone, 1990;Rowley & Slack, 2009;Stern-
berg, 1998). Such experiences are heterogeneous in nature and
may result in idiosyncratic ways of thinking about conflict. There-
fore, and consistent with the process-oriented view of wisdom
(Kramer, 2000;Sternberg, 1998), we conceptualized wisdom as a
set of reasoning strategies that may be applicable and beneficial
across a large number of social conflicts. In other words, we
defined wisdom not through the availability of static knowledge
about a particular conflict and its solution but rather through the
use of dynamic reasoning strategies that can be applied in various
domains. Building on earlier theoretical work conceptualizing
wisdom as an inherently social construct (Rowley, 2006;Stern-
berg, 2007), we measured wisdom using naturalistic, context-rich
materials concerning social conflicts and by examining reasoning
in a structured interview with a researcher.
We measured six broad strategies of wise reasoning in our
content analyses of participants’ responses to social dilemmas
(Baltes & Staudinger, 2000;Basseches, 1980;Kramer, 1983;
Staudinger & Glück, 2011). These components were (a) consider-
ing the perspectives of people involved in the conflict, (b) recog-
nizing the likelihood of change, (c) recognizing multiple ways in
which the conflict might unfold, (d) recognizing uncertainty and
the limits of knowledge, (e) recognizing the importance of or
searching for a compromise between opposing viewpoints, and (f)
recognizing the importance of or predicting conflict resolution.
The validity of these dimensions as measures of wise reasoning
has been demonstrated in a recent study, which surveyed a large
pool of wisdom researchers and counseling practitioners. The
results from this study indicated that wisdom researchers and
practitioners rated responses that are high on these dimensions as
wiser than those that were low on these dimensions (Grossmann et
al., 2010, Study 3).
Overview of the Present Research
To address the relationship between wise reasoning and well-
being, we measured wise reasoning about real-world intergroup
and interpersonal dilemmas and various indicators of well-being.
To maximize the possibility of detecting conditions under which
wise reasoning may be related to well-being, we tested a diverse
set of socioemotional tasks. In addition to exploring the relation-
ship between wise reasoning and well-being, we also addressed the
question of how aging impacts this relationship. Specifically, we
predicted that older adults would show greater well-being, partly
because they are wiser than younger adults when reasoning about
social conflicts (Grossmann et al., 2010; Studies 1–2; Worthy,
Gorlick, Pacheco, Schnyer, & Maddox, 2011).
Method
Participants
We recruited a stratified random sample of 241 Americans in
Washtenaw County, Michigan, with an approximately equal num-
ber of participants of both genders and of each of three age groups
(25– 40 years, 41–59 years, 60 –90 years) and an adequate number
of adults from lower educated strata (see Table 1). Participants
were informed that we were interested in human reasoning and
they were compensated with $70 for taking part in each of the two
2-hr individual experimental sessions.
Procedure and Materials
Wise reasoning. Part of the data on wise reasoning came from
the Michigan Wisdom Study (Grossmann et al., 2010). The qual-
itative part of the study was conducted in a face-to-face interview
setting of the Robert B. Zajonc Experimental Laboratories at the
Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Participants
were informed that we were interested in people’s reasoning about
various future events. Care was taken to ensure that the setting did
not induce fear of cognitive ability testing and possible ageism-
related stereotype threat (Hess & Blanchard-Fields, 1999). Specif-
ically, the test setting was designed to provide a social atmosphere
(e.g., use of a meeting room instead of a laboratory cubicle, neutral
art pictures on the walls of the room), and the wisdom-related
stimulus materials were formatted as regular newspaper articles.
Further, the interview was conducted using a semistructured pro-
cedure and involved additional probes to each question. In Session
1, participants read three newspaper articles describing intergroup
tensions (over ethnic differences, politics, and natural resources) in
unfamiliar countries (Grossmann et al., in press;Grossmann et al.,
2010). After each story, the interviewer instructed participants to
talk about the future development of the conflict, guided by three
questions in the following order: “What do you think will happen
after that?” “Anything else?” and “Why do you think it will
happen this way?” Participants’ responses were audiorecorded. In
Session 2, participants read three letters describing interpersonal
dilemmas (between friends, spouses, and neighbors) selected from
1
This was particularly true in analyses with age as a covariate. Zero-
order correlations in this study showed a negative relationship between
wise reasoning and both forms of affect (positive or negative).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
945
REASONING AND WELL-BEING

the Dear Abby advice column. Participants then answered ques-
tions similar to those used in Session 1. These tasks lasted 30 min
per session on average.
Coding procedure. Participants’ transcripts were masked,
and age-related information was removed. Two hypothesis-blind
coders were trained on sample materials until they reached high
interrater reliability. These coders then scored transcripts of each
response on the six aspects of wise reasoning: (a) considering the
perspective of the parties involved, (b) recognizing the likelihood
of change, (c) recognizing multiple possibilities regarding how a
conflict might unfold, (d) recognizing limits of one’s own knowl-
edge and acknowledging uncertainty, (e) searching for compro-
mise, and (f) predicting conflict resolution. Raters coded partici-
pants’ transcripts on a scale from 1 ⫽not at all to 3 ⫽a great deal;
see Table 2 for example responses. To increase the external va-
lidity of these ratings, we used separate groups of raters for
intergroup and interpersonal scenarios. Agreement between two
respective raters was good (interrater rsⱖ.85; coder discrepancies
were resolved in group discussion between the coders and Igor
Grossmann). Considering the diverse nature of the scenarios,
scores across various scenarios showed acceptable reliability as
indicated by internal consistency and intraclass correlation mea-
sures (for Session 1, Cronbach’s ␣⫽.61; For Session 2, Cron-
bach’s ␣⫽.77; across both sessions, Cronbach’s ␣⫽.78).
Well-Being and Longevity
Participants completed a set of well-being indicators and asso-
ciated measures of emotion regulation tendencies.
Positive versus negative affect. Participants were asked to
recall 10 situations (Kitayama, Park, Sevincer, Karasawa, &
Uskul, 2009). Some of these episodes involved social relations
(e.g., having a positive interaction with friends), some were
related to study and work (e.g., being overloaded with work),
Table 1
Sample Characteristics
Demographic
category % or M(SD)
Gender 50.9% women
Age in years 49.48 (16.65)
Age group
25–40 years 38.2%
41–59 years 28.9%
60–90 years 32.9%
African American 12.3%
Asian American 3.5%
European American 80.26%
Latino 3.9%
Education
High school or less 27.90%
Some college 11.50%
College 30.30%
Postsecondary 58.20%
Family income/year
Under $40,000 29.6%
$40,000–$60,000 19.7%
$60,000–$80,000 20.2%
Over $80,000 30.5%
Table 2
Example Responses for the Immigration Story, Indicating Low and High Wise Reasoning
Low High
Search for a compromise
I’m sure that each, each culture will keep their original customs.
It’s not likely that someone that’s lived a certain way is going
to change just because they moved to a new area. . . . People
are pretty true to their nature and they’re not really big on
change so I’m sure that it won’t be an easy thing for them to
change their culture.
They might want to let them continue with their ways and maybe at the same
time maybe try to do some kind of promotion to encourage them to better
assimilate into the culture though, not throw away their own culture, but to
try to make the country more unified, maybe bring customs together that
might be similar for both cultures, in order to unify the country.
Recognizing multiple ways the conflict might unfold
Most likely there is going to be very similar things as going on
in the United States . . . the economic drivers are going to
want to keep the immigration going and more traditionalists
are going to want to stem it and make laws like only
speaking Tajik, instead of both. . . . It seems like that’s
happened throughout the world history when you get a large
number of immigration coming in.
It’s hard to predict in a short period of time if the Kyrgyz will be assimilated
with the Tajiks or whether there will begin to be unrest and civil disunity
because of this immigration. . . . I don’t think it will necessary happen
either way. You have several possibilities. Either taking historically into
account what has happened: One you will have assimilation and happiness
or two you will have constant bickering and at least social disunity and
social warfare.
Considering perspectives of people involved in the conflict
I think eventually it’ll be like what’s happening in the U.S. is
that all the different cultures will merge. If it’s really
productive for the country I think the cultures will merge and
there’ll be more peace within them. . . . I think that they’ll let
them come in, because they need the labor force. . . . There’s
going to be some conflict of social interests and their
cultures. . . . There’s going to be a little bit of culture
difference. It sounds like that’s the main issue here, it’s just
the culture. I think usually that ends up working out.
I think there’ll be friction between those two ideas. People do assimilate
eventually but it often takes a couple generations to do that. . . . There’ll be
influences both ways but people who are in particular countries that
receive immigrants, they always see it from their point of view, namely
that these immigrants are changing the country. They don’t necessarily see
it from the other point of view. Also, immigrants might be upset because
their children are not the way they would be if they were back in their
homeland.
Note. The examples were adapted from Grossmann et al., 2010.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
946 GROSSMANN, NA, VARNUM, KITAYAMA, AND NISBETT

and some others concerned daily hassles and bodily conditions
of the self (e.g., being caught in a traffic jam). Participants were
asked to remember the latest occasion when each of the 10
situations happened to them. They were asked to report the
extent to which they experienced a series of emotions in these
situations. The list of emotion terms contained seven positive
(e.g., feeling of closeness, pride, elated, happy) and five nega-
tive (e.g., ashamed, frustrated, angry, unhappy) emotions. Six-
point scales that ranged from 1 ⫽not at all to6⫽very strongly
were used in rating emotional experience. To minimize possible
age-related positivity effect in memory (Carstensen & Mikels,
2005), we followed the recommendations by Kahneman and
colleagues (Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz, & Stone,
2004) and performed our analyses on the episodes from the
preceding 2 days.
2
We averaged the scores for positive (Cron-
bach’s ␣⫽.88) versus negative emotions (Cronbach’s ␣⫽
.68).
Relationship satisfaction. We asked participants to consider
their personal network including people “who are important in
your life right now.” Participants reported the initials of such
people in three concentric circles, ranging from “people to whom
you feel so close that it is difficult to imagine life without them”
(innermost circle) to “people who are close enough and important
enough in your life that they should be placed in your personal
network” (outer circle). Network members included relatives
(44%, M⫽12.74, SD ⫽8.71), nonkin friends (42%, M⫽14.86,
SD ⫽14.07), and acquaintances (14%, M⫽5.11, SD ⫽6.20).
Next, participants indicated initials of those network members who
“have given you advice and social support during the last month.”
We counted the number of such individuals as an index of positive
relations (M⫽5.39, SD ⫽4.50). Finally, we asked them to
indicate initials of those member who “have caused annoyances
and troubles during the last month,” which we counted as an index
of negative relations (M⫽1.85, SD ⫽2.11). Following previous
research (Fiori, Antonucci, & Akiyama, 2008), we obtained the
index of relationship satisfaction by examining the relative pro-
portion of distinctly positive versus negative relationships. To
normalize the skewed distribution, we log-transformed the result-
ing scores.
Rumination. Participants next completed the five-item
Brooding subscale of the Ruminative Response Scale, which ex-
amines an emotion regulation tendency to respond to distress by
repeatedly reflecting on past negative experiences (Treynor, Gon-
zalez, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2003). For instance, one of the ques-
tions asked participants to indicate how often they think “What am
I doing to deserve this?” from 1 ⫽almost never to 4 ⫽almost
always. In the present study, this scale has showed acceptable
reliability, which was comparable to previous research (Cron-
bach’s ␣⫽.69).
Life satisfaction. Participants further answered a life satisfac-
tion question (a common technique in well-being research; Kah-
neman, Diener, & Schwarz, 1999)—“All things considered, how
satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?”— on a
10-point scale ranging from 1 ⫽not at all to 10 ⫽very much
satisfied. This measure was administered via a survey distributed
a year after completion of the experimental sessions, resulting in a
smaller sample size (N⫽141).
Longevity. Finally, because subjective well-being is a strong
predictor of longevity (Chida & Steptoe, 2008), we explored how
wise reasoning relates to longevity 5 years after completion of the
first session of our study by examining publicly available death
records.
Emotional discourse. In an attempt to supplement the main
well-being measures reported in this study with implicit measures
that are less susceptible to demand effects, we explored emotional
discourse patterns. We reanalyzed participants’ narratives about
the social conflicts using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count
program (Pennebaker, Francis, & Booth, 2001). This program
analyzes texts on a probabilistic basis by comparing files on a
word-by-word basis with a dictionary of 2,290 words and word
stems that are organized into several different language categories.
The analysis computes the percentage of total words found in the
text that belong to these language categories. We took the relative
percentage of positive to negative affect words contained in the
narratives as an index of positive versus negative thought acces-
sibility. We focused on this index, because previous research
indicated that counting positive versus negative words in verbal
and written discourse about oneself and others is positively asso-
ciated with greater self-report positive affect (Pennebaker, Mehl,
& Niederhoffer, 2003) and lower neuroticism and greater agree-
ableness (Pennebaker & King, 1999) and predicts longevity (Dan-
ner, Snowdon, & Friesen, 2001).
Covariate Measures: Speed of Processing, Cognitive
Abilities, and Personality
Given the novelty of our measure of wise reasoning, we also
tested its relationships to cognitive abilities and personality traits.
Participants completed two tests of processing speed (Hedden et
al., 2002) and the digit span subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intel-
ligence Scale (WAIS; r
forward-backward
⫽.49, p⬍.001). Speed-
of-processing scores were significantly correlated (r⫽.69, p⬍
.001) and thus were standardized and collapsed into a single index.
Participants also completed comprehension and vocabulary sub-
tests of WAIS (r⫽.52, p⬍.001).
The Big Five personality dimensions were measured using the
10-item personality measure, which has shown high convergent
validity with other Big Five personality measures in past research
(Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003) and the highest convergence
with the 60-item NEO Five-Factor Inventory in comparison to
other short Big Five measures (Furnham, 2008). The two items per
each dimension were significantly correlated (r
Extraversion
⫽.53,
p⬍.001; r
Agreeableness
⫽.19, p⬍.05; r
Conscientiousness
⫽.37, p⬍
.001; r
Neuroticism
⫽.48, p⬍.001; r
Openness
⫽.40, p⬍.001).
Following an established procedure (Gosling et al., 2003), we
collapsed the pairs of scores into a single index for each of the five
personality dimensions.
Control Variables: Perceived Health and Social Class
Perceived health was measured with a three-item health ques-
tionnaire (e.g., “Compared to other people your own age, how
2
Participants reported at least one positive and one negative episode
from the past 2 days. The main results looked very similar when examining
all episodes; for example, wise reasoning was not related to positive affect
(r⫽⫺.02), but wise reasoning was significantly negatively related to
negative affect (r⫽⫺.16, p⫽.02).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
947
REASONING AND WELL-BEING

would you rate your physical health?”; Hedden et al., 2002;
Cronbach’s ␣⫽.78). Participants also provided demographic
information including their age, education, family income, and
occupation. We coded participants’ occupations using the Interna-
tional Socioeconomic Index of Occupational Status (Ganzeboom
& Treiman, 1996).
Results
Preliminary Analyses: Interitem Correlations and
Factor Extraction
Results from exploratory analyses are summarized in Table 3.
All pairwise correlations of wise reasoning dimensions were sig-
nificant except for limits of knowledge being unrelated to change
and conflict resolution (mean r⫽.25). Principal component anal-
yses and a scree plot provided evidence for a single factor, which
accounted for over 38% of the variance. An alternative two-factor
solution yielded highly correlated factors (r⫽.67), with the
second factor explaining a comparable amount of variance as each
of the six items by itself (17%). In the interest of parsimony and to
enhance measurement reliability, we collapsed the scores into a
single index.
3
Relation to Cognitive Abilities and Personality
As shown in Table 4, speed of processing was negatively
correlated with wise reasoning about intergroup conflicts (an
artifact of differential age effects on processing speed and wise
reasoning, r
partial
⫽.05, ns), whereas verbal cognitive abilities
were positively associated with wise reasoning. Specifically,
WAIS–Comprehension was positively associated with wise rea-
soning about interpersonal scenarios, and WAIS–Vocabulary
was positively associated with wise reasoning about both inter-
group and interpersonal conflicts. Among the Big Five factors,
only Agreeableness was positively related to wise reasoning.
Relation to Well-Being
Table 4 indicates a significant association between wise reason-
ing and a wide range of well-being indicators. Participants who
scored high on wise reasoning reported less negative affect in daily
life, better relationship quality, greater life satisfaction, less ten-
dency to brood, and a more positive way of talking about social
conflicts but not more positive affect in daily life. This pattern of
results was highly consistent across both intergroup and interper-
sonal scenarios.
In contrast to wise reasoning, cognitive abilities showed no
systematic relationship to the well-being indicators. Faster speed
of processing was negatively related to positive affect (r⫽⫺.13,
p⫽.06) and relationship quality (r⫽⫺.15, p⫽.05) and positively
related to brooding (r⫽.12, p⫽.10). Greater crystallized abilities were
correlated with less positive affect (r
WAIS–Comprehension
⫽⫺.19, p⫽
.006; r
WAIS–Vocabulary
⫽⫺.26, p⫽.001) and less negative affect
(r
WAIS–Vocabulary
⫽⫺.14, p⫽.07). However, higher scores on the
WAIS–Comprehension task were positively related to frequency
of positive versus negative words in the discourse (r⫽.13, p⫽
3
In Session 1 (intergroup conflicts), we explored wise reasoning
about fictional scenarios, which had similar narrative structure. We
attempted to increase the external validity in Session 2 (interpersonal
conflicts) by selecting scenarios from the real newspaper column. The
greater diversity likely resulted in somewhat lower internal reliability of
wisdom scores in Session 2 (Cronbach’s ␣⫽.50) than in Session 1
(Cronbach’s ␣⫽.71). We attempted to increase measurement reliabil-
ity by performing the main analyses on the composite index across
intergroup and interpersonal scenarios (Cronbach’s ␣on six wisdom
dimensions across both sessions ⫽.71). Results were comparable
across both types of scenarios (see Table 4).
Table 3
Factor Loadings for the Six Dimensions and
Dimension Intercorrelations
Dimension
Factor
loading 1 23456
1. Change .56 — .23
ⴱⴱⴱ
.23
ⴱⴱⴱ
.26
ⴱⴱⴱ
.38
ⴱⴱⴱ
.03
2. Compromise .70 — .44
ⴱⴱⴱ
.35
ⴱⴱⴱ
.27
ⴱⴱⴱ
.14
ⴱ
3. Flexibility .76 — .35
ⴱⴱⴱ
.25
ⴱⴱⴱ
.43
ⴱⴱⴱ
4. Perspective .64 — .17
ⴱⴱ
.17
ⴱⴱ
5. Resolution .55 — .03
6. Limits of
knowledge .44 —
ⴱ
pⱕ.05.
ⴱⴱ
pⱕ.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
pⱕ.001.
Table 4
Relationship Between Wise Reasoning, Well-Being, and Analytic
Abilities and Personality
Variable
Wise reasoning
Intergroup
(Session 1)
Interpersonal
(Session 2) Total
Relation to well-being
Life satisfaction (n⫽144) .16
ⴱ
.07 17
ⴱ
Positive affect (n⫽222) .03 ⫺.04 .01
Negative affect (reverse scored;
n⫽222) .18
ⴱⴱ
.23
ⴱⴱ
.27
ⴱⴱⴱ
Relationship quality (log; n⫽
166) .23
ⴱⴱ
.15
ⴱ
.25
ⴱⴱⴱ
Depressive brooding (reverse
scored; n⫽185) .33
ⴱⴱⴱ
.18
ⴱⴱ
.33
ⴱⴱⴱ
Positive vs. negative words in
speech (n⫽221) .16
ⴱ
.16
ⴱ
.19
ⴱⴱ
Relation to cognitive abilities and personality
Analytic abilities
Speed of processing ⫺.25
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.05 ⫺.25
ⴱⴱⴱ
WAIS Digit Span ⫺.01 .02 .01
WAIS–Comprehension .03 .22
ⴱⴱ
.08
WAIS–Vocabulary .15
ⴱ
.31
ⴱⴱⴱ
.25
ⴱⴱⴱ
Big Five personality dimensions
Neuroticism ⫺.13 ⫺.11 ⫺.15
Extraversion ⫺.06 ⫺.07 ⫺.06
Openness .05 .01 .06
Agreeableness .24
ⴱ
.20
†
.27
ⴱⴱ
Conscientiousness .09 .16 .12
Note. The values reported are zero-order correlation coefficients. Person-
ality measures were assessed via a mailed questionnaire 2 years after
completion of the laboratory sessions, leading to an attrition (n⫽104).
WAIS ⫽Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.
†
pⱕ.10.
ⴱ
pⱕ.05.
ⴱⴱ
pⱕ.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
pⱕ.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
948 GROSSMANN, NA, VARNUM, KITAYAMA, AND NISBETT

.06). The remaining correlations between cognitive abilities and
well-being indicators were negligible (|rs| ⬍.09).
Replicating previous work, personality factors showed a
number of significant correlations with well-being (Diener,
Oishi, & Lucas, 2003). Neuroticism was related to less life
satisfaction (r⫽⫺.52, p⬍.001), less positive affect (r⫽
⫺.25, p⫽.01), more negative affect (r⫽.22, p⫽.03), and
more brooding (r⫽.51, p⬍.001). Agreeableness was related
to more life satisfaction (r⫽.23, p⫽.03), more positive affect
(r⫽.23, p⫽.02), less negative affect (r⫽⫺.19, p⫽.05),
greater relationship quality (r⫽.36, p⫽.001), less brooding
(r⫽.25, p⫽.02), and more positive versus negative words in
discourse (r⫽.22, p⫽.02). Extraversion was related to lower
life satisfaction (r⫽⫺.22, p⫽.04) but also less negative affect
(r⫽⫺.18, p⫽.07). Finally, conscientiousness was linked to
more positive and less negative affect (r⫽.24, p⫽.02, and r⫽
⫺.21, p⫽.03, respectively).
Wisdom and Well-Being: Control Analyses With
Cognitive Abilities, Personality, and Sociodemographic
Factors
We next ran a series of multivariate regression models, in
which we simultaneously included wise reasoning and a set of
covariates as predictors of well-being. Specifically, we tested
how wise reasoning predicts well-being when controlling for a
set of crystallized cognitive abilities (WAIS comprehension and
vocabulary tests), Agreeableness, or length of elaboration
(quantified as the number of words in the narrative). As Table
5indicates, wise reasoning remained a significant predictor of
the majority of well-being indicators when simultaneously con-
trolling for verbal abilities, Agreeableness, and response length.
There were two exceptions. First and similar to analyses with-
out covariates, wise reasoning did not predict more positive
affect. Second, wise reasoning did not significantly predict
more life satisfaction when controlling for Agreeableness (␤⫽
.14, t⫽1.51, p⫽.13). Moreover, structural equation analyses
in which all well-being indicators were modeled as part of a
latent well-being construct regressed on wise reasoning and
covariates indicated a significant overall effect of wise reason-
ing in each of the three models. In addition, Table 6 shows that
including wise reasoning in the model with socioeconomic
factors and perceived health predicting well-being improves the
fit of regression models for each well-being indicator except for
positive affect, as indicated by the Model II R
2
significance
level.
Longevity
Because mortality is quite rare among younger adults, lon-
gevity analyses focused on participants above 45 years of age.
The results were comparable when exploring the impact of wise
reasoning on longevity on the full sample. The results of a
probit model regression with wise reasoning and age as predic-
tors and longevity (1 ⫽dead, 0 ⫽alive; 13 deaths out of 127
participants) as the dependent variable showed a significant
effect of age (B⫽0.048, SE ⫽0.019, |t|⫽2.58, p⫽.01), and
a marginally significant effect of wisdom on longevity (B⫽
⫺1.325, SE ⫽0.782, |t|⫽1.70, p⫽.09).
4
The effect of wise
reasoning on longevity remained significant in analyses with
such covariates as sociodemographic factors (gender, educa-
tion, occupational status, income), perceived health (B⫽
⫺1.389, SE ⫽0.806, |t|⫽1.72, p⫽.09), or verbal cognitive
abilities (B⫽⫺1.325, SE ⫽0.782, |t|⫽1.70, p⫽.09).
Age, Wisdom, and Well-Being
We subsequently examined whether wise reasoning mediates
the relationship between age and well-being by performing a
structural equation analysis with well-being indices as indicators
of a latent well-being construct. Each well-being indicator showed
a significant contribution to the latent well-being construct, and the
model showed an acceptable fit, ␹
2
(19) ⫽27.13, root-mean-square
error of approximation ⫽.04, comparative fit index ⫽96). Indi-
cators such as life satisfaction (␤⫽.549, t⫽6.41, p⬍.001),
negative affect (reverse coded; ␤⫽.516, t⫽7.16, p⬍.001),
relationship quality (␤⫽.345, t⫽4.00, p⬍.001), and brooding
(reverse coded; ␤⫽.718, t⫽10.37, p⬍.001) showed substantial
contributions, whereas the contributions of positive affect (␤⫽
.184, t⫽2.24, p⫽.025) and positive speech (␤⫽.238, t⫽2.83,
p⫽.005) were comparably smaller.
As Figure 1 illustrates, age was positively related to wise
reasoning and well-being, and the effect of wise reasoning on
well-being was significant when controlling for age. Moreover,
the indirect effect of age on well-being via wise reasoning was
significant (see Figure 1 for 95% confidence intervals [CIs]
from a nonparametric bootstrap test with 2,000 random replace-
ments, the technique of choice for assessing indirect effect in
smaller samples; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). Follow-up
analyses indicated that the indirect effect was significant for
middle-aged (at M
age
; Sobel Z⫽1.90, p⫽.057; 90% CI [.001,
.004]) and older adults (1 standard deviation above the mean
age, Sobel Z⫽2.43, p⫽.015, 90% CI [.001, .004]) but not for
younger adults (1 standard deviation below the mean age, Sobel
Z⫽1.24, ns, 90% CI [0, .003]), suggesting that the indirect
effect of age on well-being via wise reasoning was moderated
by age (Preacher et al., 2007).
Further analyses with wise reasoning, age, and their interac-
tions predicting well-being showed a significant effect of wise
reasoning (␤⫽.220, t⫽2.19, p⫽.028) and age (␤⫽.367, t⫽
4.15, p⬍.001) and a marginal interaction (␤⫽.158, t⫽1.77,
p⫽.077). Comparable analyses with gender and wise reason-
ing predicting well-being showed a significant effect of wise
reasoning on well-being (␤⫽.483, t⫽6.28, p⬍.001) but no
significant effects of gender (␤⫽.055, t⫽0.69, ns), nor was
there a Gender ⫻Wise Reasoning interaction (␤⫽.007, t⫽
4
The association between wise reasoning and longevity/mortality was
further moderated by participants’ age (B⫽0.186, SE ⫽0.065, |t|⫽2.87,
p⫽.004). Simple slopes analyses (Aiken et al., 1996) indicated that
middle-aged participants who scored low (10th quantile) on wise reasoning
showed a mortality probability as high as that of their older counterparts
(B⫽0.022, SE ⫽0.037, |t|⬍1, ns.). However, middle-aged participants
who scored above average (50th quantile) on wise reasoning showed
significantly lower mortality probability than their older counterparts (B⫽
1.208, SE ⫽0.036, |t|⫽3.33, p⬍.001). In addition, wise reasoning did
not significantly contribute to greater longevity among participants above
67 years of age (|B|⬍2.299, SE ⫽1.644, |t|⫽1.40, p⫽.16). Note,
however, that the death numbers in the present study were fairly small, thus
interaction results have to be interpreted with caution.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
949
REASONING AND WELL-BEING

0.08, ns). Subsequent simple slope analyses (Aiken, Reno, &
West, 1996) are illustrated in Figure 2. The relationship be-
tween wise reasoning and well-being was marginally significant
among the middle-aged participants (at the mean age, B⫽
0.297, SE ⫽0.159, t⫽1.86, p⫽.06) and significant among the
older adults (1 standard deviation above the mean age; B⫽
0.518, SE ⫽0.208, t⫽2.49, p⬍.01) but not significant among
the younger adults (1 standard deviation below the mean age,
B⫽0.076, SE ⫽0.218, t⬍1, ns).
Summary
Consistent with prior research, cognitive abilities such as crys-
tallized intelligence, processing speed, and working memory
Table 5
Wisdom and Well-Being: Control Analyses With Cognitive Abilities and Personality
Variable LS POS NEG REL BROOD SPEECH WB
Model I
Wise reasoning .165/1.896
†
.064/0.961 .275/4.316
ⴱⴱⴱ
.251/3.138
ⴱⴱ
.343/4.891
ⴱⴱⴱ
.201/2.970
ⴱⴱ
.497/6.243
ⴱⴱⴱ
WAIS–Comprehension ⫺.057/0.599 ⫺.083/1.103 .060/0.797 .012/0.134 .079/0.992 .173/2.201
ⴱ
.093/0.983
WAIS–Vocabulary ⫺.012/0.121 ⫺.218/2.748
ⴱⴱ
.023/0.279 ⫺.087/0.959 ⫺0.077/0.957 ⫺.123/1.279 ⫺.099/0.974
R
2
.031/1.014 .076/2.027
ⴱ
.081/2.331
ⴱ
.070/1.576 .124/2.476
ⴱ
.065/1.749
†
.240/3.195
ⴱⴱⴱ
Model II
Wise reasoning .138/1.509 ⫺.007/0.103 .268/4.216
ⴱⴱⴱ
.183/2.229
ⴱ
.309/4.264
ⴱⴱⴱ
.174/2.542
ⴱ
.359/3.981
ⴱⴱⴱ
Agreeableness .160/1.322 .214/2.116
ⴱ
.158/1.600 .320/3.493
ⴱⴱⴱ
.183/1.749
†
.150/1.420 .433/3.683
ⴱⴱⴱ
R
2
.044/1.138 .046/1.056 .097/2.346
ⴱ
.136/2.352
ⴱ
.129/2.585
ⴱⴱ
.052/1.482 .406/3.648
ⴱⴱⴱ
Model III
Wise reasoning .166/1.743
†
⫺.001/0.015 .271/4.044
ⴱⴱⴱ
.214/2.493
ⴱ
.355/4.993
ⴱⴱⴱ
.212/3.044
ⴱⴱ
.491/5.998
ⴱⴱⴱ
Response length ⫺.011/0.124 .048/0.661 .040/0.569 .051/0.637 ⫺.065/0.928 ⫺.064/0.925 ⫺.030/⫺0.355
R
2
.028/0.853 .002/0.328
†
.075/2.161
ⴱ
.048/1.396 .130/2.421
ⴱⴱ
.049/1.471 .232/3.125
ⴱⴱ
Note. The values to the left of the slash are standardized beta coefficients; values to the right of the slash are tvalues. LS ⫽life satisfaction; POS ⫽
positive affect; NEG ⫽less negative affect; REL ⫽relationship quality; BROOD ⫽less rumination; SPEECH ⫽positive versus negative words when
talking about social conflicts; WB ⫽latent well-being construct with contribution from each well-being indicator; WAIS ⫽Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale. Missing cases were estimated with the Mplus 6.1 full-maximum likelihood procedure. Model fit indices (root-mean-square errors of approximation)
were, for Model I, .06; for Model II, .04; and for Model III, .04.
†
pⱕ.10.
ⴱ
pⱕ.05.
ⴱⴱ
pⱕ.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
pⱕ.001.
Table 6
Model Comparison: Sociodemographic Factors Versus Sociodemographic Factors and Wise Reasoning
Variable LS POS NEG REL BROOD SPEECH WB
Model IV
Occupation ⫺.065/0.680 ⫺.221/3.018
ⴱⴱ
.039/0.503 ⫺.103/1.194 ⫺.009/0.113 ⫺.070/0.893 ⫺.061/0.623
Education (years) .062/0.665 ⫺.006/0.076 .045/0.595 .103/1.163 .034/0.421 .041/0.533 .076/0.807
Income (log) ⫺.002/0.023 ⫺.089/1.318 ⫺.050/0.735 ⫺.090/1.179 ⫺.141/1.990
ⴱ
.122/1.787
†
⫺.133/1.541
Perceived health .198/2.543
ⴱⴱ
.282/4.520
ⴱⴱⴱ
.191/2.887
ⴱⴱ
.160/2.145
ⴱ
.285/4.259
ⴱⴱⴱ
.070/1.033 .417/5.264
ⴱⴱⴱ
么⫽
1
⁄
2
/乆⫽⫺
1
⁄
2
.039/0.491 .043/0.682 .044/0.671 ⫺.170/2.309
ⴱ
.053/0.766 ⫺.072/1.080 .034/0.412
R
2
.043/1.384 .116/2.822
ⴱⴱ
.052/1.783
†
.072/1.846
†
.108/2.527
ⴱⴱ
.027/1.227 .198/2.934
ⴱⴱ
Model V
Occupation ⫺.084/0.887 ⫺.225/3.052
ⴱⴱ
.007/0.089 ⫺.124/1.462 ⫺.047/0.606 ⫺.093/1.189 ⫺.111/1.216
Education (years) .052/0.564 ⫺.007/0.098 .030/0.407 .083/0.945 .006/0.081 .028/0.377 .047/0.540
Income (log) ⫺.002/0.029 ⫺.089/1.324 ⫺.048/0.729 ⫺.086/1.156 ⫺.142/2.110
ⴱ
.120/1.801
†
⫺.131/1.637
Perceived health .192/2.460
ⴱ
.280/4.487
ⴱⴱⴱ
.178/2.755
ⴱⴱ
.144/1.944
ⴱ
.267/4.111
ⴱⴱⴱ
.058/0.869 .387/5.143
ⴱⴱⴱ
么⫽
1
⁄
2
/乆⫽⫺
1
⁄
2
.051/0.641 .046/0.721 .065/1.021 ⫺.152/2.067
ⴱ
.078/1.189 ⫺.057/0.874 .064/0.847
Wise reasoning .152/1.716
†
.029/0.452 .269/4.272
ⴱⴱⴱ
.208/2.573
ⴱⴱ
.323/4.695
ⴱⴱⴱ
.191/2.834
ⴱⴱ
.454/5.984
ⴱⴱⴱ
R
2
.063/1.687
†
.118/2.835
ⴱ
.112/2.915
ⴱ
.108/2.358
ⴱ
.197/3.782
ⴱⴱⴱ
.063/1.913
†
.396/4.799
ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. The values to the left of the slash are standardized beta coefficients; values to the right of the slash are tvalues. LS ⫽life satisfaction; POS ⫽
positive affect; NEG ⫽less negative affect; REL ⫽relationship quality; BROOD ⫽less rumination; SPEECH ⫽positive versus negative words
when talking about social conflicts; WB ⫽latent well-being construct with contribution from each well-being indicator. Missing cases were
estimated with the Mplus 6.1 full-maximum likelihood procedure. Model fit indices (root-mean-square errors of approximation) were, for Model IV,
.05, and, for Model V, .05.
†
pⱕ.10.
ⴱ
pⱕ.05.
ⴱⴱ
pⱕ.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
pⱕ.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
950 GROSSMANN, NA, VARNUM, KITAYAMA, AND NISBETT

showed no systematic relationship to well-being. In contrast, the
ability to reason wisely about social conflicts was associated with
greater global life satisfaction, greater satisfaction with social
relationships, less negative affect in daily life, a lower propensity
to brood, relatively positive discussion social conflicts, and greater
longevity. This positive association between wise reasoning and
well-being was consistent when looking separately at wise reason-
ing about intergroup and interpersonal conflicts and when control-
ling for crystallized cognitive abilities or individual differences in
personality. It is important to note that wise reasoning was not
related to greater positive affect in daily life. The latter finding
suggests that people who reason wisely are more content without
being chronically more positive.
5
Moreover, wise reasoning explained a greater amount of vari-
ance in individual well-being than did gender or various socioeco-
nomic indicators. We also observed two age-related patterns. First,
the effect of age on well-being was partially mediated by wise
reasoning. Second, the link between wise reasoning and well-being
was stronger among older adults and absent among younger adults.
Discussion
Psychologists have long sought to identify strategies that are
reliably associated with greater well-being (Seligman, 2002). The
observation that wise reasoning improves into old age (Grossmann
et al., 2010;Worthy et al., 2011) in conjunction with experimental
work on the malleability of wise reasoning (Kross & Grossmann,
2012) suggests that it may be possible to train people to reason
wisely. Our findings further suggest that wise reasoning is a
potential psychological mechanism that may explain age-related
differences in well-being. This finding dovetails with work by
Carstensen and colleagues demonstrating that as people age, they
shift their priorities toward interpersonal issues and develop
greater emotional competence (Charles & Carstensen, 2010). Ex-
tending this work, the present research demonstrated that older
adults show greater ability to reason wisely about social conflicts
than younger adults and that among middle-aged and older adults,
such reasoning is positively linked to socioemotional benefits.
In interpreting the results of our research, one important con-
sideration deals with the directionality of the relationship between
wise reasoning and well-being, as well as between wise reasoning
and longevity. In the present article, we suggested that wiser
reasoning about social conflicts leads to greater well-being and not
vice versa. A reversal would suggest that positive affect facilitates
a desire to explore the world (e.g., Fredrickson, 1998), which, in
turn, might lead to more experience and stimulate the development
of wise reasoning. But positive affect was not related to well-
being; thus, it seems unlikely that wisdom is the product of chronic
positive affect. At the same time, it is plausible that some core
emotional and social intelligence may contribute toward both
greater wise reasoning and good mental health. Further, well-being
has been linked to greater longevity on its own right (Carstensen et
al., 2011), suggesting that some common underlying mechanism
for wise reasoning and well-being has an effect on longevity.
Therefore, additional longitudinal research with the simultaneous
assessment of wise reasoning, emotion regulation strategies (Gross
& John, 2003), and social intelligence (Cantor & Kilhlstrom, 1987)
would be useful to gain deeper insight into the directionality of the
relationship between wise reasoning and well-being and the pro-
cesses that may underlie this relationship.
Another important question deals with the divergence of the
present findings and those of previous research that has explored
the relationship between wisdom-related knowledge and well-
being (Kunzmann & Baltes, 2003;Mickler & Staudinger, 2008).
First of all, in contrast to the previous studies, we provided
meaningful contexts, which would help older participants reason in
a wise way. Also, because of the lack of contextual information,
participants in their studies should have relied on their own knowl-
edge about specific life events (e.g., suicide attempt). We believe
that such focus on specific factual knowledge may be problematic.
A large body of research in cognitive psychology has demon-
strated that knowledge acquired through experiences in one situ-
ation often fails to transfer to another (Singley & Anderson, 1989).
Therefore, when measuring knowledge about specific life events,
it may be important to sample from a heterogeneous set of life
5
The null relationship between wise reasoning and positive affect dove-
tails with some developmental work, suggesting that the greater well-being
in older age is mainly accounted by steep declines in negative affect and
only a modest increase in positive affect (Stone, Schwartz, Broderick, &
Deaton, 2010).
Figure 1. Wise reasoning mediating the effect of age on well-being in a
structural equation model. Standardized coefficients are shown. The value
under the age ¡well-being path reveals the relationship between age and
well-being, after controlling for wise reasoning. The values in the square
brackets correspond to the 95% confidence interval from a bootstrap test
performed to assess the significance of the indirect effect. The mediation is
significant if the confidence interval does not include zero.
ⴱ
pⱕ.05.
ⴱⴱ
pⱕ.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
pⱕ.005.
Figure 2. The association between wise reasoning and well-being as
moderated by participants’ age in a multivariate regression analysis. Sim-
ple slopes for the minimum (min), mean, and maximum (max) ages in the
sample are shown.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
951
REASONING AND WELL-BEING

domains to make accurate estimations about one’s declarative
knowledge about such events. Conflating wise reasoning with
specific knowledge about life dilemmas may also be problematic
for some other reasons. It is plausible that wiser people may show
a lower likelihood of encountering challenging life dilemmas and
therefore have less specific knowledge about them. This may be
because wiser individuals are more likely to recognize and poten-
tially preempt some of these dramatic life events. Further, scoring
individuals with great specific knowledge about life tragedies as
wiser could introduce confounds with regard to the link between
wisdom and individual well-being: People who have greater
knowledge about very difficult situations presumably learned
about them from personal experiences; thus, their psychological
well-being might be lower. An important avenue for future re-
search would be to test the extent to which the development of
wisdom-related reasoning depends on personal or vicarious life
experiences and if such experiences strengthen or weaken the link
between wise reasoning and well-being.
Conclusion
Our results suggest that lay beliefs about the relationship be-
tween reasoning abilities and well-being are correct, with one
caveat. Whereas wise reasoning about social conflicts contributes
to well-being, abstract cognitive abilities (as measured by intelli-
gence tests) do not. On the practical side, the present work sug-
gests that despite the cognitive declines often associated with older
age, the increasing number of older adults may be of great value
for the social and emotional well-being of future communities.
References
Aiken, L. S., Reno, R. R., & West, S. G. (1996). Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (2008). The fascination of wisdom: Its nature,
ontogeny, and function. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 56 –
64. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00062.x
Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic
(pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American
Psychologist, 55, 122–136. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.122
Basseches, M. (1980). Dialectical schemata: A framework for the empirical
study of the development of dialectical thinking. Human Development,
23, 400 – 421. doi:10.1159/000272600
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rogers, W. L. (1976). The quality of
American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York,
NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Cantor, N., & Kilhlstrom, J. (1987). Social intelligence. New York, NY:
Prentice Hall.
Carstensen, L. L., & Mikels, J. A. (2005). At the intersection of emotion
and cognition: Aging and the positivity effect. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 14, 117–121. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005
.00348.x
Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Mayr, U., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2000).
Emotional experience in everyday life across the adult life span. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 644 – 655. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.79.4.644
Carstensen, L. L., Turan, B., Scheibe, S., Ram, N., Ersner-Hershfield, H.,
Samanez-Larkin, G. R.,...Nesselroade, J. R. (2011). Emotional
experience improves with age: Evidence based on over 10 years of
experience sampling. Psychology and Aging, 26, 21–33. doi:10.1037/
a0021285
Charles, S. T., & Carstensen, L. L. (2010). Social and emotional aging.
Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 383– 409. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych
.093008.100448
Chida, Y., & Steptoe, A. (2008). Positive psychological well-being and
mortality: A quantitative review of prospective observational studies.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 70, 741–756. doi:10.1097/PSY
.0b013e31818105ba
Danner, D. D., Snowdon, D. A., & Friesen, W. V. (2001). Positive
emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the nun study.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 804 – 813. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.804
Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1995). Resources, personal strivings, and subjec-
tive well-being: A nomothetic and idiographic approach. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 926 –935. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.68.5.926
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and
subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. An-
nual Review of Psychology, 54, 403– 425. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54
.101601.145056
Fiori, K. L., Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (2008). Profiles of social
relations among older adults: A cross-cultural approach. Ageing and
Society, 28, 203–231. doi:10.1017/S0144686X07006472
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of
General Psychology, 2, 300 –319. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300
Furnham, A. (2008). Relationship among four Big Five measures of
different length. Psychological Reports, 102, 312–316. doi:10.2466/pr0
.102.1.312-316
Ganzeboom, H. B. G., & Treiman, D. J. (1996). Internationally comparable
measures of occupational status for the 1988 International Standard
Classification of Occupations. Social Science Research, 25, 201–239.
doi:10.1006/ssre.1996.0010
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief
measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in
Personality, 37, 504 –528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion
regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348 –362.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Grossmann, I., Karasawa, M., Izumi, S., Na, J., Varnum, M. E. W.,
Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (in press). Aging and wisdom: Culture
matters. Psychological Science.
Grossmann, I., Na, J., Varnum, M. E., Park, D. C., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett,
R. E. (2010). Reasoning about social conflicts improves into old age.
PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 107, 7246 –7250. doi:10.1073/pnas.1001715107
Hedden, T., Park, D. C., Nisbett, R. E., Ji, L., Jing, Q., & Jiao, S. (2002).
Cultural variation in verbal versus spatial neuropsychological function
across the lifespan. Neuropsychology, 16, 65–73. doi:10.1037/0894-
4105.16.1.65
Hess, T. M., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (1999). Social cognition and aging.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Well-being: The foun-
dations of hedonic psychology. New York, NY: Russell Sage Founda-
tion.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone,
A. A. (2004, December 3). A survey method for characterizing daily life
experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306, 1776 –1780.
doi:10.1126/science.1103572
Kitayama, S., Park, H., Sevincer, A. T., Karasawa, M., & Uskul, A. K.
(2009). A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Comparing
North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 97, 236 –255. doi:10.1037/a0015999
Kramer, D. (1983). Post-formal operations? A need for further conceptu-
alization. Human Development, 26, 91–105. doi:10.1159/000272873
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
952 GROSSMANN, NA, VARNUM, KITAYAMA, AND NISBETT

Kramer, D. (2000). Wisdom as a classical source of human strength:
Conceptualization and empirical inquiry. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 19, 83–101. doi:10.1521/jscp.2000.19.1.83
Kross, E., & Grossmann, I. (2012). Boosting wisdom: Distance from the
self enhances wise reasoning, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Exper-
imental Psychology: General, 141, 43– 48. doi:10.1037/a0024158
Kunzmann, U., & Baltes, P. B. (2003). Wisdom-related knowledge: Af-
fective, motivational, and interpersonal correlates. Personality and So-
cial Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1104 –1119. doi:10.1177/
0146167203254506
Mickler, C., & Staudinger, U. M. (2008). Personal wisdom: Validation and
age-related differences of a performance measure. Psychology and Ag-
ing, 23, 787–799. doi:10.1037/a0013928
Mroczek, D. K., & Kolarz, C. M. (1998). The effect of age on positive and
negative affect: A developmental perspective on happiness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1333–1349. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.75.5.1333
Pascual-Leone, J. (1990). An essay on wisdom: Toward organismic pro-
cesses that make it possible. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature,
origins, and development (pp. 244 –278). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139173704.013
Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry
and Word Count (LIWC): LIWC2001 [Computer software]. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use
as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 77, 1296 –1312. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1296
Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003). Psycho-
logical aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual
Review of Psychology, 54, 547–577. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54
.101601.145041
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing mod-
erated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Mul-
tivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. doi:10.1080/
00273170701341316
Rowley, J. (2006). What do we need to know about wisdom? Management
Decision, 44, 1246 –1257. doi:10.1108/00251740610707712
Rowley, J., & Slack, F. (2009). Conceptions of wisdom. Journal of
Information Science, 35, 110 –119. doi:10.1177/0165551508092269
Salthouse, T. A. (2004). What and when of cognitive aging. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 140 –144. doi:10.1111/j.0963-
7214.2004.00293.x
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive
psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Sigelman, L. (1981). Is ignorance bliss? A reconsideration of the folk
wisdom. Human Relations, 34, 965–974. doi:10.1177/
001872678103401104
Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of
rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Staudinger, U. M., & Glück, J. (2011). Psychological wisdom research.
Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 215–241. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych
.121208.131659
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General
Psychology, 2, 347–365. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.4.347
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of
General Psychology, 3, 292–316. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.3.4.292
Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Words to the wise about wisdom? A commentary
on Ardelt’s critique of Baltes. Human Development, 47, 286 –289.
doi:10.1159/000079155
Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Jordan, J. (Eds.). (2005). A handbook of wisdom:
Psychological perspectives. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610486
Stone, A. A., Schwartz, J. E., Broderick, J. E., & Deaton, A. (2010). A
snapshot of the age distribution of psychological well-being in the
United States. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America, 107, 9985–9990. doi:10.1073/pnas
.1003744107
Watten, R. G., Syversen, J. L., & Myhrer, T. (1995). Quality of life,
intelligence and mood. Social Indicators Research, 36, 287–299. doi:
10.1007/BF01078818
Wirthwein, L., & Rost, D. H. (2011). Giftedness and subjective well-being:
A study with adults. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 182–186.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.001
Worthy, D. A., Gorlick, M. A., Pacheco, J. L., Schnyer, D. M., & Maddox,
W. T. (2011). With age comes wisdom: Decision making in younger and
older adults. Psychological Science, 22, 1375–1380. doi:10.1177/
0956797611420301
Received April 6, 2012
Revision received July 4, 2012
Accepted July 4, 2012 䡲
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
953
REASONING AND WELL-BEING